Let's take some more figures; this time from the WTO, which tracks exports to and imports from Africa as an entire continent (and other regions) here:
The relative economic significance of Africa to these countries is (in billions $US):Table A18 Merchandise trade by product, region and major trading partner, 2010-2011 — Canada
Table A19 Merchandise trade by product, region and major trading partner, 2010-2011 — United States
Table A20 Merchandise trade by product, region and major trading partner, 2010-2011 — Brazil
Table A21 Merchandise trade by product, region and major trading partner, 2010-2011 — European Union (27)
Table A22 Merchandise trade by product, region and major trading partner, 2010-2011 — China
Table A23 Merchandise trade by product, region and major trading partner, 2010-2011 — Hong Kong , China
Table A25 Merchandise trade by product, region and major trading partner, 2010-2011 — Japan
Table A26 Merchandise trade by product, region and major trading partner, 2010-2011 — Korea, Rep. of
Table A27 Merchandise trade by product, region and major trading partner, 2009-2010 — Malaysia
Table A28 Merchandise trade by product, region and major trading partner, 2010-2011 — Singapore
Given the widespread hue and cry of the "yellow peril" ("The Chinese are coming ! The Chinese are coming !"), it surprised me that the US was so close to them in African trade. That the EU was far and away the primary trading partner did not surprise me at all.EU 2010 Exp 162.33; Imp 176.47
EU 2011 Exp 183.49; Imp 203.12
China 2010 Exp 56.06; Imp 67.07
China 2011 Exp 69.14; Imp 93.24
US 2010 Exp 28.28; Imp 87.47
US 2011 Exp 32.61; Imp 94.84
Japan 2010 Exp 10.08; Imp 11.69
Japan 2011 Exp 9.91; Imp 17.11
Brazil 2010 Exp 9.24; Imp 11.30
Brazil 2011 Exp 12.22; Imp 15.44
Korea 2010 Exp 10.21; Imp 6.29
Korea 2011 Exp 10.74; Imp 6.88
Canada 2010 Exp 3.30; Imp 9.62
Canada 2011 Exp 3.52; Imp 14.52
Singapore 2010 Exp 7.09; Imp 1.08
Singapore 2011 Exp 9.15; Imp 1.20
Malaysia 2010 Exp 4.89; Imp 2.87
Malaysia 2011 Exp 5.91; Imp 3.45
Hong Kong 2010 Exp 2.34; Imp 1.62
Hong Kong 2011 Exp 2.53; Imp 4.33
Other "hues and cries", intended to call Americans to action, are the "brown peril" ("The Muslims are coming ! The Muslims are coming !") and the "genocide peril" ("The genocide is coming ! The genocide is coming !"). All three of these messages may have varying degrees of truth in them; but that truth content should not necessarily cause Americans to take action.
The thing that struck me about President Obama's African visit was, what seemed to me, his discomfort with the realities of Sub-Saharan Africa, versus his ideological positions on civil and human rights - positions in which the Congressional Black Caucus (left-progressive in beliefs) also join. Perhaps, there also is discomfort with the fact that the Middle Passage had a beginning (Africa) and an end (America). The beginning can be ignored in the interest of tranquility, but that does not eliminate the discomfort.
So, perhaps it is best to sing Kumbayah (which is not African, but African-American-Gullah), exalt Nelson Mandela and forget about ancient history and present-day realities.
Regards
Mike
Last edited by jmm99; 10-27-2013 at 09:12 PM.
jmm99,
The thing about the Chinese isn't their volume of trade with Africa, but the rate at which Chinese trade with Africa is growing.Given the widespread hue and cry of the "yellow peril" ("The Chinese are coming ! The Chinese are coming !"), it surprised me that the US was so close to them in African trade. That the EU was far and away the primary trading partner did not surprise me at all.
Please note that twenty years ago, China wasn't even in consideration as a major trading partner, but today it is right up there.
That is what is keeping the US (& the EU which consists of 28 nations) a bit concerned.
I don't know (though I expect they know the difference between Africans and African-Americans) - you'd have to ask the White House and 43 African-American House members (which no longer include Allen West) about this:
If you ask them, you might want to send along the link to this article (from China Talking Points !!), Chinese, it’s the new black in Kinshasa (by Eric Olander, February 21, 2010):In my brief time in the DRC, I seemed to me that the Congolese didn't really care what color an American was, he was a mundele just the same. I wonder if Mr. Obama and Congressional Black Caucus know that.
Thus, the article's lede sets up its key point, which KJ made a few posts back in this thread:The arrival of an estimated one million Chinese across Africa is having an impact far beyond what anyone could have expected. With many of those Chinese immigrants assigned to the mines and construction projects that are rapidly changing the face of African cities, a more complex and radical transformation is happening far off the main roads. Here in Kinshasa, as in many other major African cities, tens of thousands of Chinese immigrants have taken up residence smack in the middle of indigenous local communities.
While an elite minority of Chinese expatriates live in the gated compounds with their western counterparts, the vast majority of Chinese immigrants are far less fortunate. They live side by side in the densely packed shanty towns with the 8-10 million other Kinshasans who struggle each day with water, electricity and security. Never before have so many people from such divergent cultures had to assimilate so rapidly on this continent.
This is a dramatic departure from past waves of foreign migration to Africa say, for example, by the British who imported South Asians to their former colonies. In those cases, Indians and Pakistanis were tightly segregated from both their white patrons and, in many cases, Africans themselves. This sparked the creation of large South Asian ghettos in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa among other places. No, instead, the Chinese are assimilating themselves in truly unbelievable ways.
Just as it is everywhere else, race relations across Africa are extremely complicated. That said, there is one exception. For most Africans the difference between themselves and foreigners is straightforward: you are either black African or you are “white.” No matter if you are South Asian, Middle Eastern or even African-American, you will likely be described as “white.” It’s essentially an “us and them” mentality. That is, until the Chinese arrived. ...
We simply have to get Gen. Buck Turgidson back - we must not allow the Mundele Gap !!On a recent drive back to the office, I asked one of my local colleagues where the Chinese communities were in Kinshasa. “There is no Chinese community, they live with us,” he said. “They live right next door to me. They eat with us, they shop with us and they even sell “beignets!” (tasty donut-like fried dough). He said when the Chinese first arrived in his neighborhood a couple of years ago, he thought it was a bit strange and kept his distance from the “mundele” (the Lingala word for “foreigner” or more generally used to describe “white people”). Over time, though, he said attitudes started to change as he and his neighbors began to see the Chinese as different from most of the other “mundele” who live in Kinshasa. “They’re learning Lingala,” he went on, “they eat with us and, most importantly, they are not afraid of us.” Now, more and more, the Chinese peasants who live among the vast neighborhoods of Kinshasa are being seen as less foreign and, incredibly, less “white.” “We joke among ourselves that the Chinese skin is becoming browner and browner to where it’s now black,” he said.
Regards
Mike
China's trade with the World has climbed during 2001-2011 (Table A14 Merchandise trade by region and selected economies, 2001-2011 — China):
2001: Exp 266.1, Imp 243.6
2011: Exp 1898.4, Imp 1743.5
China's trade with Africa has increased at a higher rate:
2001: Exp 5.6, Imp 4.8
2011: Exp 69.1, Imp 93.2
but, Africa (even as to China) is only a 4% factor; we aren't that far behind China in Africa; and the numbers are dwarfed by the US trade imbalance with China.
That is what the US should be concerned about - its own garden:
2001: Exp 71.1 Imp 26.2
2011: Exp 398.6, Imp 123.1
That is why I've nothing good to say about either the Bush or Obama foreign trade policies. No responsible government would allow a trade imbalance of this kind to exist.
The US trade imbalance with the World is ~800 billion $US (Table A11 Merchandise trade by region and selected economies, 2001-2011 — United States). The trade imbalance with Africa ($62 billion) is part of that problem.
Regards
Mike
Last edited by jmm99; 10-28-2013 at 05:02 AM.
Kingjaja,
Presidential or State visits have their place. But, not in donor countries. As a taxpayer and having had the unfortunate task of preparing for such visits, I see no justification (1984 to 2013) regardless of the timeframe. I can imagine that in 1990 you were hustling around with the presidential visits, based on your sarcasm you obviously know what it takes and what it does not accomplish in order to get a visit done
Back to the Chinese and your LEOs and Military. Seems your country has very little Chinese ordnance. I hope that some smart guy at the Nigerian MOD begins to negotiate for replacements.
Take care, Stan
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Stan,
So why do US presidents visit Israel?Presidential or State visits have their place. But, not in donor countries. As a taxpayer and having had the unfortunate task of preparing for such visits, I see no justification (1984 to 2013) regardless of the timeframe.
Kingjaja,
Outside of the obvious answer which is very political, they are not exactly a donor nation. Foreign Military Financing make it not a donor nation. One needs a better understanding of how DSCA:http://www.dsca.mil/ works and how it is financed. That is, in a nut shell, non-appropriated funds.
A quick look at Wiki gives you a glimpse of the presidential trips and reasons.
Regards, Stan
Last edited by davidbfpo; 10-29-2013 at 03:50 PM. Reason: Author's request
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Stan,
I thought the donor nation was the nation that gives?Outside of the obvious answer which is very political, they are not exactly a donor nation. Foreign Military Financing make it not a donor nation. One needs a better understanding of how DSCA:http://www.dsca.mil/ works and how it is financed. That is, in a nut shell, non-appropriated funds.
A quick look at Wiki gives you a glimpse of the presidential trips and reasons.
Regards, Stan
Okay, that aside - we've established a few key points.
1. US trade with Africa is only a fraction of its total trade with the World.
2. Africa is full of aid recipient nations.
3. US presidential visits to Africa cost too much & involve very difficult logistics.
4. Consequently, the African continent (especially Sub-Saharan Africa) isn't worth a US presidential visit. It is a waste of tax payers money - as the money is better spent on funding aid initiatives in recipient nations.
5. In other words, Sub-Saharan Africa is a strategic backwater with limited relevance to the United States of America.
6. The US thinks that some form of military engagement is important in this strategic backwater - hence AFRICOM, which helps in counter-terrorism, removing explosive ordnance & doing (exactly what, I'm not clear on) in Congo DRC.
7. If the Chinese or Indians want to waste their taxpayers money on presidential visits to this strategic backwater - it isn't the problem of the US taxpayer - who is yet to communicate to the US State Department that it should stop getting worried about Chinese etc senior leadership interaction with African leaders (especially when compared with the limited face to face interaction with African & US leaders).
8. Since all that is needed is a phone call - President Obama should ensure he phones African leaders regularly.
Now that we've established all this, we'll move over to other topics.
Kingjaja,
Boy have we been busy today
Lost in translation… and yet, we are both speaking English !
The donor nation in my former diplo speak is the recipient (nation or country).
On to your questions and statements !
Very true, but the sources of funding are dependent on the host nation (recipient) and the Country Team (Members of the US Embassy). Some harmony actually exists there. If the host country doesn’t request, or, the Country Team does not suggest, then there is no funding despite the fact that the State Department offered a program or avenue to fund eligible countries. Even then, the process is scrutinized in DC and may not make the grade. Human rights violations kill the project dead in its tracks. That said, most African nations will not make the grade unless someone gets real creative at writing.
Presidential visits are normally offset in most host countries which could be a contributing factor to why such costlier visits are nixed before they happen. For example in the former Zaire, where humanitarian cargo flights were being assessed over flight and landing fees. “I’m sending you free food and clothing, yet you are charging me to land?” WTF ? Now we can discuss logistics as much as 4 weeks prior to and up to 2 weeks following the visit. The worst person you would ever like to meet is a presidential or spouse’s strap hanger (pre-deployed 20 year-old prima donnas charged with making sure they get what they want and you are blamed for everything that goes wrong). Ungrateful, rude and abysmal all come to mind. I wouldn’t wish that experience on my worst enemy. You have no clue ! The host country and her teams generally make life easier, but, not in Sub-Sahara. A team of Presidential Guard and Guard Civil begin beating bystanders and forbid you from entering a Children’s Hospital. I could go on.
Paradoxically ! IMO, it is a waste of money and we also have people with no health insurance and no home to live in. Sorry, but I would prefer our people had a place to live and table to sit at for dinner if we are going to spend my tax dollars. Those presidential trips to France and Israel probably don’t sit well with a lot of Americans, but some sort of politics plays a bigger role and most would understand that. The day that Nigeria joins NATO, things will get totally out of hand and you will be sick of the visits, and not just from the USA. My point much like above in para 3 is we are donating. Make it easier to explain, support and visit. Or, forget it.
I think I sufficiently covered this one.
We killed this subject way back when. For years there was a command known as EUCOM (European Command) that had not only Europe but Africa as well. AFRICOM is little more than a mini EUCOM tasked with handling Africa. Both EUCOM and AFRICOM answer to the Dept of Defense among others. Assistance funding is handled by the Dept of State. It makes no difference how many stars your General has in EUCOM or AFRICOM if State does not agree. AFRICOM and the host country come up with a plan and State approves and funds. If either party disagrees, it’s dead. We do not, nor can we, simply start training your LEO and Military without you. Is there something strategic at play ? I would hope so, or there would be no reason to spend so much money. The removal and destruction of UXO in DRC and now Mali were at the request of the host nation. No capability, no money, no enthusiasm, etc. Nigeria the same this year. Would it be better to re-watch videos of a Nigerian policeman being blown to bits because of lack of experience and training, not to mention lack of equipment that your government has yet to fund ? You insist that our minescule 93 million is not needed, but your claims are based on your limited knowledge of what is really needed. You posted and asked me why that Nigerian policeman had to die such a gruesome death and I, in grave detail, explained the circumstances. Your government needs to train her personnel and needs to equip your LEO and military with $25,000 bomb suits. That being said, you need about 40 bomb suits per State. Now maybe you understand what I do and I am not politically charged with this task, just paid to do so.
I personally don’t care and didn’t see anything that I would pursue as a president. I have communicated my thoughts in an official capacity and I doubt that would be sufficient to change anything. Then during the Rwandan genocide and now in relative calm. Why would I think my public voice would turn heads at the Capital ? Now imagine people like my sister who has yet to travel outside of America. Even if she had an opinion about support to Africa (which she doesn’t) how could she possible support her view and why would she march on DC ? American tax payers want to know where all their money is going and 100 million for a plane trip is a bit much. If the POTUS wants to travel, I recommend he take economy class and go alone.
I sadly do not have access to Obama’s phone bill, but I am sure the NSA does
When I was in Zaire, those phone calls occurred monthly at $6.00 a minute. And when things began to go to Sierra in Zaire, so did the phone calls.
Agreed !
Regards, Stan
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Sequestration means Africa comes to Washington DC, well nearly:Link:http://africacenter.org/2013/10/afri...rican-nations/Ambassadors, diplomats, and military officers representing 45 African nations participated in a 90-minute roundtable discussion October 23, 2013, with three of the top U.S. officials engaged in U.S.-Africa relations.....
There's a wide selection of programs, courtesy of "Uncle Sam":http://africacenter.org/home/
davidbfpo
davidbfpo,
Another group session?
On March 28, Presidents Macky Sall, Joyce Banda, Ernest Bai Koroma & Jos Maria Pereira Neves met President Obama in a group at the White House.
Predictably, Macky Sall, the leader of Senegal (one of Africa's more important nations) got a LOT of flack from Senegalese media for going to the White House as part of a tour group.
There's something that the US doesn't get; that the Chinese seem to get - US might unwittingly be sending out the vibes that it is too busy to visit African officials, so it prefers to seem them in groups.
This is never intentional but, I think diplomats need to be careful about that - Africa is very diverse & it is very difficult to cover the ground in a group.
If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)
ganulv,
Try bringing the Presidents of Brazil, Argentina, Chile & Mexico in a group to see the US President because there are too few hours in the day and he's too busy to see them all.That’s fair. But there is also the practicality that the President of the United States is both the nation’s head of state and head of government. There are so many hours in a day and days in a term.
Obama will be politely told that he isn't the only busy president in the World.
Some things are either worth doing well or not worth doing at all.
ganulv,
These people took their time, flew all the way to the US to see the US president - and he can't see them individually because he's too busy - give me a break!
What message does that send?
On the one hand you have the world’s 6th, 26th, 38th, and 14th largest economies. On the other you have the world’s 115th, 147th, 160th, and 168th largest economies. There is more to life and diplomacy than money, but do the math.
Also, the first are all within a historic sphere of American influence and one of them forms the U.S.’s southern border.
I suspect he is far busier than the the President of Senegal. And I say that with due respect to President Sall and without intending to insinuate that he lounges all day being fed grapes.Obama will be politely told that he isn't the only busy president in the World.
Lord knows I didn’t attend the Kennedy School of Government (and Lord knows I didn’t want to and that they wouldn’t have let me in if I had) so I don’t know the ins-and-outs of high level diplomacy, but my impression is that my government takes a s*#t in that arena on a fairly regular basis, if you will pardon my vulgarity. So I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you. If the calculation was that Obama couldn’t spend public one-on-one time with each of the four leaders then perhaps the invitations should not have been extended at all. That would run the risk of coming across as dismissive in a different way, of course.Some things are either worth doing well or not worth doing at all.
Poor them! I bet they had to fly Coach, too! The U.S. President has 50 state governors to rub elbows with, as well, and flight time between Dakar and DC isn’t much longer than between Sacramento and DC. And AFAIK it has been over a half century since a Presidential candidate calculated it worth the time to fly to Hawaii for a campaign stop.These people took their time, flew all the way to the US to see the US president - and he can't see them individually because he's too busy - give me a break!
Do we even know that he didn’t meet with those four African leaders individually? Again with the poor diplomacy—maybe he did, and just didn’t arrange a fancy photo op. Like you said, worth doing well or not worth doing at all, perhaps.
Last edited by ganulv; 10-30-2013 at 03:17 AM.
If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)
I was doing some reading on a different African topic and I came upon the following map (The Long-Term Effects of Africa’s Slave Trades; map is at p.17):
12-Nunn Map.jpg
It shows the major ethnicities within (and some split up by) the neo-colonial state borders.
Since the thread has now turned to individual vs group leadership meetings, my thoughts when looking at the map turned to the "what if" questions:
1. What if the neo-colonial borders were scuppered; and new borders aligned on the basis of the ethnicities ?
2. How would these many more, much smaller countries fare in the diplomatic and trade arenas ?
3. Specifically, would the resultant multiplicity of West-Central African coastal countries (the most ethnically divided) then be placed at a competitive disadvantage as their pre-colonial antecedents apparently were - as recently argued in 2009 by two Univ. of Michigan economists, The Impact of the Slave Trade on African Economies.
4. What counter-strategies could that multiplicity of relatively tiny countries employ in order to offset the power of their trade "partners" (whether EU, China or US) ?
This is not an argument for keeping the neo-colonial borders; my dog is not in that fight; my presumption favors self-determination; but how many, many tiny countries would fare in a dog eat dog world seems a legitimate issue.
KJ: I expect you have considered this issue; I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Regards
Mike
Last edited by jmm99; 10-30-2013 at 05:12 AM.
I wondered who three of the African leaders were, Ms Banda was easy. So the White House press release was found and has the spin on why they met:Today President Obama welcomed President Ernest Bai Koroma of Sierra Leone, President Macky Sall of Senegal, President Joyce Banda of Malawi, and Prime Minister Jos Maria Pereira Neves of Cape Verde to the White House. The United States has strong partnerships with these countries based on shared democratic values and shared interests. Each of these leaders has undertaken significant efforts to strengthen democratic institutions, protect and expand human rights and civil liberties, and increase economic opportunities for their people.
davidbfpo
Some other nations have been busy in Africa.
Israel is actually quite popular in a lot of Sub Sahara Africa (at least the Christian parts), so there's a bid to grant them observer status at the African Union - which Egypt naturally opposes.
Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...#ixzz2jCOANGQ3CAIRO — Egyptian fears have been rekindled regarding the spread of Israeli influence in the Horn of Africa, and more particularly the Nile Basin, following information obtained by Egyptian security agencies that Ethiopia, Kenya and Nigeria were attempting to promote Israel’s candidacy as an observer member in the African Union (AU). These states were also urging other AU states to include a discussion of this request on the agenda for the African Summit in January 2014 in Addis Ababa.
jmm99,
It's a long read - let me get back to you (after working hours).
Bookmarks